Nothing against video. I just think maybe (or maybe not!) having one good model with little or no video could possibly permit Canon to offer a unit with very good stills capability at a lower price point. If Canon can make an "astrophysics" version, and apparently Leica can make a B&W only version, then surely a stills-only (or stills and very basic video only) version is not such an odd-duck?

Leica make stills only cameras but they are not cheap. That is the part you're missing -- a cheap stills only camera would not be a viable product unless it sold enough and didn't undercut other products. Stills only models are niche products and therefore quite expensive.

The good news is that if you really do want a stills only body, there are some very good inexpensive stills only cameras on the market -- the 40D, the 50D, and the 5D classic. Canon aren't interested in selling a stills only full frame body for less than $1000- or a stills only APS-C for less than $500-, but you could buy one in those price ballparks if that was what you really wanted.

Let me put it differently then. Take a for example something like the 60D. Canon could leave the price the same (not drop it as in my previous post), but SWAP out the video features for one or two things near and dear to the still-shooter's heart. Drop video, but add in something from the next level above 60D, like the microfocus adjustment and AF from the 7D for example.

A stills specialty camera. That could catch Nikon flat-footed. One minute Nikon thinks they have the edge on Canon for a particular level of camera, then BAM. Using technology Canon already has, it suddenly owns that level as far as stills-shooters are concerned.

Isn't that where the rebels and xxd lines come in? There are lots of dslr options under $1000. They all have video too. At least from where I stand, no one should be saying, I want my first dslr should i get a mkiii or a d800? <snip>

Well, depends on your disposable income.

I'm always of the thought, when I get into something...I try to go for the best I can reasonably afford, and go from there.

I'm about to (possibly today) pull the trigger on my first DSLR, and getting a 5D Mark III. I was about to get the Mark II back in Dec/Jan, and had heard rumors and found this forum about the Mark III coming out. I've held back, researching, seeing value vs price...and seeing if any bugs in first version, etc.

Right now? Well only camera really I've had in years is my iPhone one....and that is 3GS right now.

So, yes, some people jump in with both feet with what they can afford.

Frankly, one of my driving choices for this...IS the video capabilities...I'm wanting to use it for shooting high quality videos. That was actually my primary reason for looking into the 5D Mark xyz.However after reading here and researching, I'm completely excited about learning to shoot stills!!!

So, for all around camera...Canon has hit the homerun for a first time customer like me.

But like many have essentially said here...right tool for the job....just base it on your budget.

cayenne

Interesting. I never understood why people would buy a DSLR for its video capabilities. Yes, you get the large sensor and decent low light capabilities. But for serious filming don't you have to attach all sorts of expensive gizmos and struggle finding the right (off brand) lenses and third party firmware etc?

For that kind of money and effort I would just buy (or rent...) a professional video camera and call it a day.

Well, I suppose if I was shooting Hollywood, big cinema stuff, sure I'd likely get all the trappings...and higher end lenses.

But there is a LOT of upper end, indie stuff being shot with the 5D Mark II and now the III...with high end Canon lenses.

Yes, eventually, I'll get a shoulder rig, with the attachments for easier focus pulling...but for now, what I'm doing myself, I'll be using a tripod. I'll soon get a fluid head for it...and I"m looking to start with constructing a DIY stedi-cam type rig, and DIY rail for moving shots.....

I already have a zoom digital recorder, and I'll start likely with a simple Rode mic. I got some good advice on getting an adapter and lavalier (sp?) mike to hook to my iPhone that I can use for miking people too....that is a cheap start for sure.

And this, to me...is the best of both worlds. After hanging on here for the past months....and the research I've been doing. I'm completely stoked (did I just say that?) about still photography. I've gotten a great book, "Understanding Exposure"...and can't wait to try it out when it gets here.

Above all, this is for me to enjoy....but there are opportunities, and I've already gotten some contacts, that I can actually maybe start soon making some $$ to help pay it off what I just bought.

Who knows...with practice and getting to know more people (HUGE media activity down here in New Orleans due to the heavy tax credits for films, etc)....maybe some day, I can actually make some cash on the side that is worthwhile.

But, that's just gravy if it happens. I'm just wanting to video some idea myself and friends have...and start taking some great shots on stills.New Orleans, does have it share of stuff to photograph.

In fact, I can't go out and buy a Leica M9 with the lenses I'd want. I simply can't afford that and the EOS DSLR system is the best I can do. I know that this is a luxury complaint.

Well, there are stills only cameras, and there are video cameras that support stills. If the ones with video functionality happen to be consistently cheaper than the stills-only models, you might reconsider your assumption that this functionality results in higher prices.

Quote

It's that video and some other stuff has been crammed into modern SLRs that I pay for but don't need.

In what sense do you pay for it ? If there is a cheaper product that doesn't have video, why not just buy that instead ? If there isn't a cheaper product, again, maybe your assumption that the video functionality drives up the price is incorrect.

If you pay for it -- if a $200 camcorder is a viable product, just how expensive can it really be to add it ?

Quote

And as you said - the only alternative in the digital world for guys and gals like me is buying into a viewfinder system for 20 grand or so. No can do.

You could also buy a previous generation digital camera.

The rational choice would be to get the choice that best fits your needs for the lowest price possible. If that product happens to also include video functionality, the inevitable conclusion is that despite the supposed "costs" of video functionality, the camera with video ultimately proved to be the best value proposition.

1DS3 has no video and look at the quality of the image that it gives - low ISO performance is as good as anything else Canon sells today with a product that is a year older than the 5DII. Perhaps there is something that impacts the still performance when video is added (the 1DS3 does not have the same sensor as the 5DII)

Let me put it differently then. Take a for example something like the 60D. Canon could leave the price the same (not drop it as in my previous post), but SWAP out the video features for one or two things near and dear to the still-shooter's heart. Drop video, but add in something from the next level above 60D, like the microfocus adjustment and AF from the 7D for example.

A stills specialty camera.

Then it would basically be a 7D (at a lower price) which is their stills specialty camera. even though they threw in video, no flip screen, no magic lantern and a bunch of stills oriented features -- it's a stills camera.

It seems that your complaints amount to generic complaining that the 7D is "too expensive" .

I think there is a sound business reason that the product you propose has never seen light of day -- just not viable. They wouldn't sell it in sufficient quantities to be able to get the price down.

Quote

That could catch Nikon flat-footed. One minute Nikon thinks they have the edge on Canon for a particular level of camera, then BAM. Using technology Canon already has, it suddenly owns that level as far as stills-shooters are concerned.

They already have the 7D. Lowering prices of your high end products much of a strategy for success.

Let me put it differently then. Take a for example something like the 60D. Canon could leave the price the same (not drop it as in my previous post), but SWAP out the video features for one or two things near and dear to the still-shooter's heart. Drop video, but add in something from the next level above 60D, like the microfocus adjustment and AF from the 7D for example.

A stills specialty camera.

Then it would basically be a 7D (at a lower price) which is their stills specialty camera. even though they threw in video, no flip screen, no magic lantern and a bunch of stills oriented features -- it's a stills camera.

It seems that your complaints amount to generic complaining that the 7D is "too expensive" .

I think there is a sound business reason that the product you propose has never seen light of day -- just not viable. They wouldn't sell it in sufficient quantities to be able to get the price down.

Quote

That could catch Nikon flat-footed. One minute Nikon thinks they have the edge on Canon for a particular level of camera, then BAM. Using technology Canon already has, it suddenly owns that level as far as stills-shooters are concerned.

They already have the 7D. Lowering prices of your high end products much of a strategy for success.

Not griping about cost on 7D, just using that as an example as I am familiar with 60D and 7D. Use two other adjacent Canon camera bodies if you prefer. Canon camera systems compete with Nikon on tiers. Nikon has a camera to match each level of Canon. I am saying only that Canon could steal a march on Nikon by adding more features than the corresponding Nikon equivalent, and that the distinction of "no video" could prevent the enhanced model from directly undercutting the system above it in the Canon lineup. And that "astrophysics" camera had not "seen the light of day" until the day it did pop out into the light of day. If a specialty that esoteric can be deemed "viable", then how wild and crazy is releasing a stills-only camera? That is a proven product, with a large proven market, as stills cameras were the ONLY DSLR product until just 5 years ago or so.

In the olden days, when film ruled the roost, there was still the great disparity in price between consumer cameras and professional equipment. But photos from the cheapest camera looked identical to the photos from the most expensive (assuming the same lens, film etc). The only reason to pay more was for a tougher body, more fps, faster AF, and better viewfinder. If you were simply seeking "best 35mm image quality", it made little difference how expensive the camera body was.

That's no longer the case. Now, people have to spend a lot more if they are seeking "best image quality from a non medium format camera". And if this is what they are seeking, they will be looking at a 5Diii or D800. And I don't see any problem with people thinking that way. But the 5Diii and D800 are expensive. And that's because they do have some many capabilities, functions and features. It is actually surprising that they are as cheap as they are.

They are regular rumours of a bare bones Canon Full Frame camera. I'd be very curious to see what price such a camera could sell for. I think there is a market for a very simple camera that had superior image quality. If Canon could sell such a camera for around the $1,500 - $1,800 mark then they will rule the camera world for many years to come. Everyone who's a crop camera user and has had a nagging doubt that their pictures would be better if they only had a full frame camera would buy one. I'm hoping this is the mirrorless camera that's coming.

Logged

Camera Obscura

briansquibb

In the olden days, when film ruled the roost, there was still the great disparity in price between consumer cameras and professional equipment. But photos from the cheapest camera looked identical to the photos from the most expensive (assuming the same lens, film etc). The only reason to pay more was for a tougher body, more fps, faster AF, and better viewfinder. If you were simply seeking "best 35mm image quality", it made little difference how expensive the camera body was.

That's no longer the case. Now, people have to spend a lot more if they are seeking "best image quality from a non medium format camera". And if this is what they are seeking, they will be looking at a 5Diii or D800. And I don't see any problem with people thinking that way. But the 5Diii and D800 are expensive. And that's because they do have some many capabilities, functions and features. It is actually surprising that they are as cheap as they are.

They are regular rumours of a bare bones Canon Full Frame camera. I'd be very curious to see what price such a camera could sell for. I think there is a market for a very simple camera that had superior image quality. If Canon could sell such a camera for around the $1,500 - $1,800 mark then they will rule the camera world for many years to come. Everyone who's a crop camera user and has had a nagging doubt that their pictures would be better if they only had a full frame camera would buy one. I'm hoping this is the mirrorless camera that's coming.

Like the new Leica monochrome is barebones?

Of course cheapness is not the prime criteria, IQ would be. How about 22mp, no filter, 6fps, ff, ef mount, good af, AF linked metering, very simple controls for $2000

What I think most people are missing is that if it wasn't there then it would cost sales and that this cost (or loss) would dominate any such camera to either make it more expensive (Leica expensive) or unprofitable and thus never repeated.

Magic Lantern is free. How many people develop it? If Canon needs millions to do what a couple of guys can do for free then Canon has a problem.

I like ml very much and use it all the time. However, it has to be said ml is an "if it breaks, you get to keep both pieces" project. If Canon would implement all the features ml has, they'd have to thoroughly test it or they'd be ripped to pieces in reviews or handle the feedback if tweaking has unintended side effects. Or Ken Rockwell would write it doesn't work right out of the box...

I really don't understand the whining about video. There are only benefits to having it, and there are zero costs.

The drawback is that the firmware is more optimized for video, too, and this imho cuts features and innovation on the still side. But the argument that Canon making more money because of video and this benefits everyone is valid, too.

However the irony is that canon's protection of it's precious C series means it holds back on it's DSLRs not even offering 4:2:2 out uncompressed. huh

Unfortunately, this is the way the system works - but with ml and the current 18/21mp bodies, there is little missing from it, so Canon may very well leave out some features and make lots of $$$ with the C series and sell it to studios. The still photography side on less expensive bodies is much more crippled than the video side.

Not griping about cost on 7D, just using that as an example as I am familiar with 60D and 7D. Use two other adjacent Canon camera bodies if you prefer. Canon camera systems compete with Nikon on tiers. Nikon has a camera to match each level of Canon. I am saying only that Canon could steal a march on Nikon by adding more features than the corresponding Nikon equivalent, and that the distinction of "no video" could prevent the enhanced model from directly undercutting the system above it in the Canon lineup.

Yes, but that's not a whole lot different to doing the same thing without removing video (marginal cost of video is next to zero). They could compete by making their high end models cheaper but that might not be very profitable for them.

Quote

And that "astrophysics" camera had not "seen the light of day" until the day it did pop out into the light of day. If a specialty that esoteric can be deemed "viable", then how wild and crazy is releasing a stills-only camera?

The "astrophysics" camera costs 50% more than the camera that it is based on. Stills only cameras are completely viable (see Leica), just not at the price point you want.

Niche models always sell at a premium, never a discount. For example, you might think that if someone wanted a mirrorless camera with a fixed prime lens, it would be really cheap. Well, the product exists (Fuji X100) but it turns out to be more expensive. Likewise the monochrome M9 is even more expensive than the color version (a premium upon a premium).

Quote

That is a proven product, with a large proven market, as stills cameras were the ONLY DSLR product until just 5 years ago or so.

Which is your other option if you want a stills only camera-- there is a strong secondary market for these cameras. They are still good cameras, "proven products" as you state. The part that isn't proven is competitiveness in todays market place. In todays market place they are niche products (much like film cameras are today)

What I think most people are missing is that if it wasn't there then it would cost sales and that this cost (or loss) would dominate any such camera to either make it more expensive (Leica expensive) or unprofitable and thus never repeated.

What I think most people are missing is that if it wasn't there then it would cost sales and that this cost (or loss) would dominate any such camera to either make it more expensive (Leica expensive) or unprofitable and thus never repeated.

Like the 5D, 40D, 1DS3?

All of those cameras were released prior to the 5D2 and the Nikon D90, so they were all released prior to video in a DSLR becoming a checkbox item today and if anything, prove my point. Today, Canon would not sell a DSLR without video in sufficient volume to recoup R&D costs.

Today, Canon would not sell a DSLR without video in sufficient volume to recoup R&D costs.

Seriouly. Can you imagine if the 5DIII didn't have video (cause they were saving it for the Cine cameras)? People are already flipping out about DR, banding in shadows, a light leak "issue". Now take video away from the camera they've been waiting 3 years for and this forum would have imploded.